I feel like as humans, we should all have a common sense of understanding when it comes to a lot of the political issues we are facing today. However, a lack of this understanding has created a huge divide between political parties.

I saw on the news, a group of people were holding a vigil for an innocent man that was murdered by police and on the other side of the street, there was a group of individuals actually protesting against the vigil. There is no sense of understanding when it comes to innocent lives being taken

I wonder if this could be a possible allusion to him addressing gentrification later on in the text? I am curious to find out

This quote has triggered the lateral reading strategy for me because I remember reading in another article that African Americans were the most underrepresented group in America when it comes to voting because of their limited access to resources.

This statement coincides with how the author chose to compare the damage from the spread of false information to that of a weapon. A video like this going out can be extremely harming to her and her career.

I think that the way the author uses this figurative language adds more meaning to the message they're trying to portray. By saying misinformation on the web can be "weaponized", the author is highlighting just how dangerous they perceive this matter to be.

I think that this statement really puts into perspective just how much of our information can be fabricated. We have to continuously question the information presented to us

So this article was arguing against this side and then tells us to be mindful of the other argument? I suppose this is a very psychological approach because being open minded while approaching a topic does enable us to view it from a wider scope of perspectives.

One of the best ways to make sure of this is to always check where you're getting your source from. Is it sponsored? .gov, .edu, .org? What is the person going to gain from publishing this information?

I think it is dangerous how big of an influence and role politics plays in these pharmaceutical companies because when the state of our healthcare is in the hands of people who only care about saving money, we see similar examples in what is taking place in society today with the COVID-19 pandemic.

I like that this paragraph restates what the article is trying to convey. I know that sometimes while annotating, the text I am reading stimulates a lot of thinking and connections for me that it is easier for me to stray from what the author intended this article for.

The study of psychology can literally be tied back to understanding how your brain functions and within that, how it can be easily tricked and manipulated. We should know as researchers when our minds are being played with and when to question the information being provided to us.

When you learn a little bit about big pharma companies and how much money they have to throw around for corrupt lawyers, politicians, and to cover up their mess, you are alarmed by how huge their influence is

One of the strongest ways to back your claim is to discredit the source going against it. However, this definitely does make readers question the validity of the New York Times, it has always been an established source so one would assume they fact check their information.

According to my therapist, it is a really strong gene to pass on, almost everyone on my mom's side has ADHD.

Similar to my earlier annotation, in my research for our civic paper, I read a few articles that did mention scientists were collecting research data to learn more about the causes of ADHD. Prematurity, prenatal exposures, and head injuries are all some common hypothesis that have been made.

I find this sentence to be confusing because I never generally associated pain with autism? I always believed it was a developmental disorder but never one that carried a degree of pain with it.

I would like to conduct more research on this topic.

This is making me think of my initial inference of what approach the text was going to make. With my current knowledge I realize that I was way off. The article is clearly stating that regardless of how your symptoms show up, ADHD is still very much real. This makes me reroute my thinking to believe the article is arguing that it is ok for people to have different symptoms and still fit under the ADHD diagnosis umbrella.

The brain does work differently with each person. You have to take a lot of things in psychologically to really know if it is ADHD or something else. This ties in with the previous argument of ADHD showing up differently.

Also creates room for misdiagnosis

One of the main reasons I centered my paper around girls/women with ADHD specifically was because as I was research my own diagnosis, I realized that women aren't often diagnosed until way later on in life compared to boys. The reason for this is because ADHD shows up differently in boys and girls when they are kids so it is harder to recognize it in girls. Boys come off as more disruptive and "bouncing off walls" while girls are generally more talkative, outgoing, forgetful, etc. As a result of this, girls tend to go longer undiagnosed.

From my experience with the medications, I can almost never sleep a full night, mood swings, and craving that feeling of productivity

Some ex.: addiction, craving a more intense "high", overdose, finals week, abuse, selling them

I learned that another reason why therapists are more hesitant to diagnose someone with ADHD (especially over the age of 18) is because the medication is a stimulant and thus can easily be abused since it directly affects the nerves/brains.

To what extent do some people believe this diagnosis should go? Is it simply a matter of "oh yes he has a hard time focusing" or more along the lines of, "this is a learning disability".

I would like to go into the citations and see if I could possibly find what article he is referring to so I can get more clarity on the argument.

Initially reading this makes me link it with another source that I used in my paper. From my background knowledge, I now know that a lot of people argue that ADHD is simply a means of disciplining the brain hard enough. While there is scientific evidence and studies to prove the workings behind an ADHD brain, people still believe it is a hoax.

This allows me to go into the text with some background information of what to expect from the opposing argument.

Although the $180 is a higher amount, I feel like people are not patient at all, they aren't too keen on waiting a full month for an additional $30 when they could have $150 in a day.

Im not sure what the twilight zone means, however, after looking it up, it appears as though the twilight zone is the threshold in between science and reality? I am still not quite sure if this is the accurate definition based on the placement of this word. If anyone could help me out, I would appreciate it, thank you.

The first thing that catches my attention in this article is the bright, bold, red titling on the head of this page. I notice that they spelled "your" wrong, I wonder if this was done on purpose since the article title suggests it will relate to tricks on the brain?

I can see how readers would make this connection. Often times, it feels as though text in writing is far more important because that is the structured format that we have learned to recognize serious texts with. On the internet, I'm used to reading shorter texts that typically aren't important for me to recall on later.

This is such a strong statement and the more I reflect on it, the more I see this taking place in present society. We have grown so accustomed to new norms that we are almost turning into norms. We have apps and programs to do almost everything for us, causing us to use our minds less and less. In addition, it is so rare that we sit down with a book and no outside distractions allowing us to fully commit our attention to the text in front of us.

The author does bring up a really good point. With so many different sites, and things to do on the internet, it is hard to sit down and internalize with a meaningful text that you are reading. I feel as though the internet does through our mind's into a frenzy and as a result of that, we are left with a constant flow of thoughts

I can see why some would consider this ideology to be considered "practical" however, this would only hurt the voting system. A large number of people don't have access to higher education or demanding jobs, should we eliminate their voice from society simply because of that? The system would then drastically change only to favor those who are in higher positions.

Who would declare what level of education these guardians should have? How would we establish a system to keep these guardians in check if they were to overstep?

I remember taking a class on the U.S. government my sophomore year of high school and that was the only time the topic was touched on during school. Reflecting back on it all these years later, it is almost impossible to recall everything that I've learned. Had I not gone out to actively pursue educating myself on our government system, I would be completely clueless. It is eerie to me just how many people are not educated fully on how the government works and operates however they have very, very strong political views.